Quantcast
Channel: translation theory – Fantastic Memes
Viewing all 11 articles
Browse latest View live

Translation Theory for Anime Fans: Why You Should Care

$
0
0

Dying+can+be+fatal+to+your+life+seems+like+death_39d9be_4962121I’ve talked about translation quite a few times already on this blog (see here, here and here), but I thought it would be a good idea to talk specifically about the theory behind translation – and why you in particular, as an anime fan, should give a crap.

This will be a series of posts that covers a major translation theory/debate every week with a key focus on how it applies to anime and its fandom. I’m writing this for a non-specialist, non-academic audience, so I’ll try not to sound too technical or dry. Translators might find some of this stuff relevant to their craft, but this isn’t a guide on how to translate.

Hopefully, after reading a couple of these posts, you’ll have a more informed opinion on key fandom issues such as fansubbing, localisation, faithfulness, and, of course, DUBS VERSUS SUBS.

But before we get started, we need to ask ourselves the obvious question.

What’s the point of theory?

Ah, the age old dilemma. Even though translation is an academic discipline these days, lots of translators don’t care much for the academic theories behind translation. They’d rather just get on with it. And indeed, there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that academically trained translators are better than untrained translators. However, as the famous translation theorist Susan Bassnett said: “The division is not really a division at all, for practitioners do talk about their work and can often articulate what they do and how they do it very well indeed.” (Reflections on Translation, 2011: pg. 16)

Theory is a way of verbalising something that most practitioners understand intuitively. It doesn’t necessarily make you a better translator, but it certainly doesn’t hurt, and it can help you find common ground with other translators when discussing particular problems. Even the most experienced translators get stuck all the time wondering, “What is the best way to translate this piece?” And while no theory can offer a clear cut solution, they can offer a range of possible answers, all correct in their own way.

But what about people who just read translations? Why should they know the theory? Well, as it turns out, it’s probably just as important for non-practitioners to know theory. For a start, if people had an idea about just how difficult it is to translate, maybe translators would get paid more (lol).

The main issue here, though, is that translation is, by definition, an act of communication between different cultures. We learn about other cultures through translations. We convey information through translations. One might even say that we create culture itself through the process of translation.

This is particularly relevant to the anime fandom because the majority of you reading this probably experience anime or other forms of Japanese pop culture through translation. Our fandom culture is influenced by the words used by translators, and in turn, our culture influences the translators.

8421-justasweaboo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me give you an example of this. Take all those Japanese words that have become part of the fandom lingo: otaku, moe, chuunibyou, etc. Anime fans adopted these words because they filled a gap in their lexicon. They were also simply left untranslated by many translators, which helped speed their rapid adoption. As anime has become more and more popular, the fandom has also become more insular, and the language has become more specialised accordingly.

It’s come to the point where someone with no familiarity with anime would be left confused by even the official subtitles of a show on Crunchyroll. What does all that san and chan nonsense mean? Manga is confusing as well. Imagine reading a book back-to-front! But it’s second nature for many of us fans.

In my opinion, to understand the nature of the modern anime fandom, it is absolutely necessary to understand why translation approaches to anime have changed over the years. And to understand that, you need to understand some translation theory.

I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Here is something the German translation theorist Heike Jüngst said about manga fans in Germany:

Manga fans are conscious of the fact that they are reading translations. Some of them learn Japanese, but as very few schools in Germany offer courses in Japanese, this is normally a private effort with a high drop-out rate. However, they expect the translations to give them something which is as much like the original as possible. The idea that there will always be losses and gains in comics translation, as expressed by Grun and Dollerup (2003), is not one these readers would be pleased with. (pg. 60)

– From Comics in Translation (2008), edited by Federico Zanettin.

This situation is one that feels very familiar to me from my observations of the English-speaking anime fandom. Indeed, with manga and anime translations all over the world, the trend has been to keep more and more of the original Japanese elements. It’s a trend that professional translators are highly aware of as well. Think of the backlash aimed at 4kids dubs and other early English adaptations. These days, professional translators are not much different from fan translators and are very often one and the same.

There are a bunch of complicated factors behind this which I will delve into with later posts, but it’s something for you to think about. Why do you think anime fans tend to prefer translations that retain the “Japanese-ness” of the original? What sort of translation do you prefer as an individual?

In my next post, we’ll look at theories of equivalence. What’s the difference between formal and dynamic equivalence, and what sort of translation style is prevalent in anime translations? If there’s no such thing as an objectively good translation, why do light novel translations suck???

 

Until next time…

BGcTT



Translation Theory for Anime Fans: How to Critique Translation

$
0
0

Let’s start today’s post with a Youtube video.

What’s interesting about this guy’s take on fansubbing is that he brings up translation theorists in order to justify his argument that fansubs are Objectively Bad Translations. This is something you should probably take with a grain of salt. It’s really easy for an academic’s work to be oversimplified when it’s being talked about in a non-academic environment. Even if the argument itself is presented accurately enough, the context around it might not be. In other words, someone might present an academic theory as fact when a theory is really just a theory.

This is relevant to the world of translation because, if you read any of the modern theories, they’re pretty much all in agreement that what makes a good translation is… um… well… it depends.

Seriously, that’s what it comes down to.

Take the untranslated Japanese words in fansubbing, for instance, which the video above overwhelmingly presents as a bad thing. Venuti, one of the cited academics, actually wrote a book in 1995 called The Translator’s Invisibility, where he comes out in favour of leaving cultural terms untranslated. Here’s what he has to say for himself:

The translator … may submit to or resist dominant values in the target language, with either course of action susceptible to ongoing redirection. Submission assumes an ideology of assimilation at work in the translation process, locating the same in a cultural other, pursuing a cultural narcissism that is imperialistic abroad and conservative, even reactionary, in maintaining canons at home. Resistance assumes an ideology of autonomy, locating the alien in a cultural other, pursuing cultural diversity, foregrounding the linguistic and cultural differences of the source-language text and transforming the hierarchy of cultural values in the target language. (pg. 308)

In plain English, what he’s saying is that whitewashing the differences between cultures is racist.

Granted, Venuti is not saying that weaboo translations are a great thing. In context, he’s arguing that translators should show a critical understanding of the cultures they’re working with. He wants translators to take their role as cross-cultural communicators seriously. The average fan translator has probably not thought deeply about imperialism and orientalism, but these are things that keep translation theorists awake at night.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objectively good translation. Lots of translation theories encourage certain approaches, but there is no scholarly consensus about what makes a good translation. Just like there’s no scholarly consensus about what makes a good anime (although eminent scholars definitely agree that your favourite anime is shit), a lot of translation is purely subjective.

But how can I tell if a translation is good?

See, this is an important question. I really encourage all anime fans to approach translations with a critical eye. However, if you don’t know the original language, how can you critique a translation properly? Are you really going to trust those guys at Cry More to do the thinking for you?

Here is what I think: Even if you don’t know the original language, you can still critique translation as a work of art in its own right.

The first thing you need to do is discard the notion that translations are inherently inferior to the original. Nor should you hold them to unrealistic expectations of faithfulness. If a translator has to change things around to make things work in your language, that’s okay! It’s a valid approach.

This might be going a bit far, though

This might be going a bit far, though

Think of translation like an adaptation. All translations serve a function, and all of them go through a process of transformation before you eventually read them. When you think of a translation in terms of what it is trying to achieve and how it is doing it, you can critique translation usefully even if you’re not an expert. I mean, I’m betting that none of us here are master animators, but we all have expert opinions about anime, right???

Anyway, there are two central theories in translation that should come in handy whenever you’re thinking about any translation.

I’ll start with the simpler one: skopos theorySkopos comes from the Greek word meaning ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’. The theory states that all translations serve a function, whether the translator is consciously aware of it or not.

The advantage of this theory is that it frees you from the assumption that translations have to read a certain way. You also don’t need to know the language to make reasonable guesses about what the translation is trying to do. What kind of audience is it trying to appeal to? How does the language reflect it? You can basically analyse a translation like any other text.

Of course, there are limitations to the theory. I think Anthony Pym sums it up quite well:

If every translation is dominated by its purpose, then the purpose is what is achieved by every translation. To separate the two, we would have to look at “bad” translations where purposes are somehow not achieved, thus complicating the notion of what a translation is. … Some appeal might be made to a principle of internal contradiction (one part of the translation goes one way, the other goes the other, so it is bad…). But who said a translation only has to have one sole purpose? The longer continues that line of argument, the less the Skopos rule seems to be saying. (pg. 152)

– From Exploring Translation Theories, 2nd Edition (2014)

This makes sense. Just because a translation fulfills its stated aim doesn’t mean it’s a “good” translation. For instance, the aim of a machine translation of a light novel is just to give fans a basic idea of what happens in the story. That doesn’t mean it has to preserve the stylistic elements of the novel or even be grammatically correct all the time. Basically, not all goals are created equal. (A similar thing applies to anime, by the way.)

That’s why proponents of skopos theory also mention that you can’t ignore the source text altogether when you’re evaluating a translation. It might not be the most important thing as far as translation is concerned, but it’s still pretty darn important.

Which brings me to the other central theory in translation: equivalence.

Translation works on the assumptions that words can mean different things in different contexts. That’s why there is no such thing as 1:1 equivalence. Even among speakers of the same language, there might be a need to “translate” words or phrases.

Now, there are certainly incorrect translations. You can’t translate 犬 (inu) as ‘cat’. But even when you rule out what a word or sentence can’t mean, they’re still open to multiple interpretations. Because of that, it’s better to think of equivalence in terms of a spectrum instead of a binary.

In other words, a translation doesn’t have to be literal or free. It can incorporate elements of both.

Screen-shot-2014-02-08-at-8.47.41-PM

Source: He Is Making Everything New

Moreover, equivalence doesn’t have to be posed in terms of this one spectrum. Eugene Nida came up with the idea of “formal” versus “dynamic” equivalence, where “formal” means sticking close to the word structure or form of the original text, and “dynamic” means capturing the effect. Friedrich Schleiermacher came up with “foreignization” versus “domestication”. Christiane Nord devised “documentary” versus “instrumental” translation. There are many more examples.

This might seem like an overload of terms all expressing the same thing, but they’re actually subtly different. A translation with lots of foreignised terms doesn’t have to be literal, for instance. An “instrumental” translation (i.e. one that prioritises its function over the form of the original message) doesn’t have to be a “dynamic” translation in the sense that it’s trying to capture the effect of the original.

You don’t have to know the names of all these approaches (in fact, I’m pretty sure these theorists are just making up new words for the hell of it). All you really need to know is that translations don’t just have to be literal or free. Once you open yourself up to the possibilities of translation, the more complex theories are easier to grasp, and you can still relate them to the translator’s word choices. That’s a topic for next time, though.

I'm sure there was a deep meaning behind this

I’m sure there was a deep meaning behind this

To finish, here are some things to think about:

When can you tell that a translation is a translation? What defines “translationese” for you?

Nida says that “dynamic” translations are generally preferable for literature. Would you agree with him?

Have you ever read a text in more than one language? Did reading that text in another language help you appreciate it more or less?


Translation Theory for Anime Fans: A Case Study of a Fan Translator vs a Professional

$
0
0

Fan translation is an interesting subject for media scholars. The whole practice is a demonstration of how our media consumption habits have been changing thanks to online technology. Fans have always been creating their own content, but now they’re able to distribute them much more quickly and more widely than ever before. A lot of the academic debate has centered around the ethics of fan translation and its relationship with piracy, which is a very fascinating subject that will get its own post one day.

Ironically, what gets less attention is the actual translating aspect. There have been scattered observations about the translation strategies used by fan translators, but very little empirical research. How do fan translators compare with professional translators? No one can answer this for certain. The question has only become more difficult to answer as the boundaries between “fan” and “professional” in the anime/manga/VN scene become increasingly blurred.

Today, I’d like to share with you guys a case study published in 2008 which directly compares a fan and professional translation. It’s not perfect (the scope of the study is extremely limited, and not to mention the study was published seven years ago), but what’s interesting was the author’s conclusion: the fan translation was considered just as competent as the professional translation.

7ij8Rsi

Bibliographical Information

O’Hagan, Minako. “Fan Translation Networks: An Accidental Translator Training Environment?” In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, edited by John Kearns, 158-183. London: Continuum, 2008.

Summary of the Case Study

In 2006, O’Hagan interviewed a fan translator involved in the scanlation scene about his translation habits and experiences. She also asked him to translate a short manga called Shissho Nikki (trans. Disappearance Diary), which had not been translated by any scanlation or professional group at the time. (It has since been scanlated, though.) The manga was chosen because it contained a lot of culturally-specific words and phrases. O’Hagan wanted to test the fan translator on two things in particular: his Japanese proficiency and his approach to translating culturally-specific words. His translation was then compared to a translation done by a professional.

The main purpose of the study was to find out if the scanlation environment works well as a training ground for potential translators. O’Hagan goes into detail describing the scanlation process as being much like a real workplace. Translators, editors and typesetters all have clearly defined roles. Scanlation also requires regular time commitment from each group member, especially when speed is a consideration. Of course, the only way to test whether a scanlation group produces professional-quality work is to compare the work to that of a professional. Hence the test.

1

The results were a little surprising. While the fan translator did make accuracy errors, especially when translating informal sentence structures, his translation was remarkably similar to the professional’s overall. However, there were striking differences in two particular areas:

  1. The fan translator actually used less translation notes than the professional.
  2. The fan translator tended to emphasise the idiosyncrasies in the dialogue more. In particular, the fan translator used drawn-out vowels to show colloqualism visually. (O’Hagan calls this “orthographic devices.”)

Examples:

  • “This is bad . . .  Reeeally bad” vs “Man, I feel sick”
  • “Heeey! Don’t ignore meeee!” vs “Cutting me dead, huh?”
  • “Okaaay” vs “OK”
  • “I’lllll kill yoooou!” vs “I’ll kill you!”

It appears that the fan translator used the elongated vowels to convey that the character speaking the lines was an okama. The fan translator picked a translation strategy that would make the character sound more effeminate, based on his close familiarity with the okama stereotype and how it tends to be portrayed in manga. O’Hagan deemed the fan translator superior in terms of genre awareness.

Also, while both translators claimed that they were attempting to keep translation notes to a minimum, the fan translator left more cultural words unexplained. Sometimes, he substituted more obscure cultural words for more widely known Japanese words. For example, he rendered the word izakaya as sake shop. O’Hagan notes that this might have had something to do with the fan translator having a particular readership in mind (i.e. fellow fans), whereas the professional translator was thinking about audience in a more abstract way. In other words, the professional assumed less cultural knowledge from the readers.

Overall, O’Hagan concluded that the two translators used equally valid translation strategies. Both were acceptable as commercial translations.

What are the takeaways from this?

Even if a fan possesses imperfect language skills, they might be able to compensate with genre awareness and a clear understanding of their target audience’s expectations. Of course, language ability is still extremely important, so genre awareness can only carry you so far. But it does help translators come up with creative and fitting solutions to translation problems.

There are, however, huge caveats to this study. The results are obviously not generalisable. It only suggests some certain ways that the fan translation environment could potentially be useful for training prospective translators. O’Hagan doesn’t claim that fan translation is automatically equal to professional translation. The quality of fan translations are extremely variable, after all.

The other thing to take into account is how the anime/manga translation industry has evolved since this study was carried out. Most professional translators these days are extremely familiar with anime conventions and internet lingo. Some of them may even have been fan translators in the past. This is how we end up with Crunchyroll subs pulling stuff like this:

gkZUib4

So is it worth trying to compare “fans” and “professionals”? I would say so. You might find it useful to think of fans and professionals as groups that influence each other. Even if the translations we are exposed to these days don’t fall neatly into either category, the ideas behind “fan translation” and “professional translation” continue to be extremely influential. You should also consider the fact that while professionals may frequently call themselves fans, only the professionals get paid. The distinction is not completely arbitrary.

So in the end, how do fans and professionals compare? I’ve written almost 1000 words without actually answering the question. There isn’t enough research to suggest that one is better than the other. As always, it comes down to context and keeping an open mind.

However, I will say this: O’Hagan wrote that article in order to convince translation theorists to take fan translations seriously, not just as a sociological phenomenon but as a serious alternative to the models taught in the academy. Even outside the anime world, crowdsourced translation projects are becoming ever more popular. Professionals who ignore the trends may well find it harder to adapt to a rapidly changing market. Professionals have a lot to learn from fans, just as fans have a lot to learn from professionals.


Translation Theory for Anime Fans: Postcolonialism, Feminism and all the other scary Tumblr words

$
0
0

In the 1980s and 1990s, translation theorists discovered social justice. It became very popular to talk about what it means to be an “activist translator” and the ways we can use translation to make marginalised minorities more visible. We call this the “cultural turn” of translation studies.

Sociology is still the dominant paradigm for translation theories today. This should come as no surprise if you think about it. Translation is an act of cross-cultural communication, so all the major sociological theories are a natural fit. In fact, I took up translation studies after majoring in Japanese language and cultural studies, and I’ve also taken courses in history and sociology. Postcolonialism and feminism are not new concepts to me.

Feminism… well, everyone knows what that is. (Or, at least, everyone thinks they know what that is.) I don’t want to get into any internet arguments about it so I’ll just say that feminism is about women’s rights and leave it at that.

cross_ange_22_2-640x360

Postcolonialism doesn’t get talked about so much in pop culture, but it’s just as important when it comes to social justice. Postcolonialism is the study of the cultural legacy of colonialism. As we know, there was a period in time when European powers colonised much of the known world, and the ongoing effects of racism and imperialism are still felt today.

This post is a short compilation of some of the more detailed essays and reflections I’ve written about the subjects. I did them for my translation theory class so the language is pretty academic. But I do talk about a lot of my personal experiences as well, so I hope you find them interesting.

The links open to pastebin in a new window.

Thoughts on the gap between theory and practice: I talk about how most people just don’t get what translation is all about. Translation theory is confusing, and that’s because translation itself is confusing! If only everyone could become more informed. Considering how inherently political translation is, it’s dangerous when people don’t ask what translations are for or what they’re trying to achieve.

Thoughts on translation and (post)colonialism: I linked to this essay on Ask.fm a while back, and it’s related to my thoughts on cultural appropriation. The history of translation is one of subjugation. Dominant cultures have always been spreading their ideas through translation, a process which has helped stifle indigenous languages and culture. How can this trend be reversed?

Translation and ideology: Why do I translate illegally?: This essay talks in general about how ideology influences translation, with reference to the Irish language revivalist movement. I also talk about why I am a fan translator and a filthy pirate. It has something to do with the fact that I AM SECRETLY A COMMUNIST.

tumblr_static_i-has-a-hat..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Disclaimer: I am not actually a Communist.)

None of these essays talk specifically about feminism, so let me spare a few words to address the elephant in the room.

Historically, translation has always been compared – negatively – to women. You might have heard the saying: “Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful.” This is not true about women or translations, but hey, it’s a catchy saying.

Obviously, feminist translators do their best to reverse such debilitating stereotypes, because they’re partly responsible for why translation is still regarded as a rather unprofessional occupation, despite how intensely difficult it is. Translators don’t get paid much, generally speaking. They’re also not expected to leave any of their personality in their work. That’s because translations are held to an unreasonable standard of “faithfulness” despite the fact that translation is inherently subjective. Translation will only be regarded as an art in its own right when the world at large recognises that faithfulness is not the entire goal of translation.

The other thing that feminist translators do is point out all the awesome female translators in history. For example, did you know that the person single-handedly responsible for introducing classics such as War and Peace to the English-speaking world was a woman? Constance Garnett produced a whopping 71 volumes of translated Russian literature, including all of Dostoevsky and Turgenev’s novels. She also did hundreds of Chekhov’s stories. This woman worked like a machine. But of course, pretty much nobody knows who she is because she was a translator and a woman. And those who do know her make fun of her for being the Google Translate of her time. It’s hard to win in this world.

Constance Garnett

Constance Garnett

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are some controversial feminist theories, though. Some feminists object so strongly to the whole “translations should be faithful” thing that they advocate rewriting the texts altogether, just to make them more feminist-friendly. To quote Sherry Simon, one of the prominent feminist translation theorists:

For feminist translation, fidelity is to be directed toward neither the author nor the reader, but toward the writing project – a project in which both writer and translator participate. (pg. 2)

– From Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (1996)

In theory, this sounds quite nice, but it does lead to ethical problems, especially if the translator changes the intent of the original without taking the audience or the author into account. For example, if a translator removes sexist language in a text, aren’t they white washing its problems instead of opening it up to critique?

That said, I am generally okay with a translation making changes, even major ones. I would just prefer it if this process was transparent, so that the audience is also aware of what is happening.

Even more controversial (in my eyes, at least) is the contention that only women should translate texts written by women. This is related to the idea that for a very long time, translation has been done by people who didn’t actually understand the context of the works they’re translating. For example, back in the colonial era, we had lots of racist white guys translating Indian texts and not representing them very well. Feminists are right in saying that, assuming every translator was equally fluent in both languages, some translators are still more qualified to translate a particular text than others because of the experiences they’ve had. But the idea that only women can translate for other women is still problematic because not all women share the same cultural experiences.

Not to mention that discouraging men from translating women’s texts is a stupid idea to begin with. It only risks encouraging the kind of gender essentialist nonsense that feminists go out of their way to avoid. To say that only women can translate for women is like saying that only women can write female characters. I would urge people (particularly privileged folks) to do the proper research and be sensitive about culture/gender differences when they translate, but that is NOT the same thing as excluding them or devaluing their work.

So there you have it. As you might be able to see from this post, translation theorists can disagree with each other very strongly about things. There are no easy answers when it comes to translation, so all I can do is state my views as honestly as I can.

Do you agree with the ideas in this post and in my essays? Do you disagree?


Enrico Terrinoni, translator of Joyce

$
0
0

A really interesting interview with an Italian translator, translated by @Sephyxer. Anyone interested in the art and industry of literary translation should check it out.

Subterranean Tales

This post is mostly an English exercise for me to try and see how good are my translating and writing skills, so which better way to attempt it by translating an interview made to a translator? If you want the original interview you can find it here. Of course, if you find some grammatical errors or you don’t understand the meaning of a sentence (this is bound to happen), feel free to tell me! Sorry in advance to English majors and grammar nazis, this will make you cringe a lot.

_________________________________________________________________

Enrico Terrinoni is an Italian teacher and translator. His translation of Joyce’s Ulysses, published by Newton Compton in 2012, won the “Premio Napoli” the same year, proving itself as a critical and commercial success. As of today, in addition to contributing with the Manifesto’ s cultural page and occasionally with the “Corriere della Sera”, he’s working…

View original post 4,481 more words


How would a black woman speak in anime? A case study of Little Women

$
0
0

vlcsnap-2016-01-31-13h55m09s57On the whole, black characters are quite rare in anime and manga. Plus, it’s been pointed out before that the majority of them are based on racist stereotypes. Although there is a black population in Japan (in fact, the current Miss Japan is half-black), most Japanese people are only exposed to black people through the media, which tends to reinforce their ignorance. As a result, you’d be hard-pressed to find an anime that focuses specifically on black issues.

The Little Women anime (1987) is one of the exceptions, as it goes out of its way to educate its young viewers about slavery and the American Civil War. The notable thing about this production is that it actually adds black perspectives that were entirely missing from Louisa May Alcott’s novel. The character of Hannah, the family maid, was changed into a black woman, and there’s also a subplot in the early episodes focusing on an escaped slave named John. [1]

As great as this is for people who like some diversity in their anime, it still remains that these perspectives are included for the benefit of a Japanese audience, not for an African American or even a White American audience. These representations are drawn primarily from second-hand sources. Moreover, the distinctive qualities of “Black vernacular” are completely erased through translation, which serves to obscure the complex relationship between race, gender and class.

If anything, this anime makes visible the uncomfortable politics of Alcott’s original novel, for by depicting black bodies without their voices, Little Women affirms a sanitised version of racial relations that revolves entirely around the white, middle-class experience.

This is a post about translation. It shows how all translation is, in the end, a matter of representation. I’ll compare how the white characters and black characters in Little Women are “represented” in Japanese, with a particular focus on women’s speech (which makes sense since this is a show about, you know, little women). But before we get to that, let’s go over some basic concepts in translation and sociolinguistics.

Words mean things because of context

It’s true. I like to think of this as the “Romeo and Juliet” principle: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Basically, unless a word is linked to an object or concept in your mind, it is just a sound. And also, just as importantly, words sound differently to one’s ears because of the context and meaning we attach to them. “Rose” sounds like a pleasant word, while “poo” doesn’t.

resized_socially-awkward-penguin-meme-generator-roses-are-red-violets-are-blue-writes-a-love-poem-rhymes-blue-with-poo-df21c1

Likewise, the reason why dialects and speech styles sound differently to our ears is because of the social connotations we attach to them. For better or worse, we make judgements about a person’s class and social background based on the way they speak and write. We also make assumptions about a person’s gender identity, even with a supposedly gender neutral language like English.

To sum up, the premise of sociolinguistics is that words mean things because of context, and that you can understand languages by looking at the social dynamics that shape them.

Things start to get complicated when you include translation into the mix, because translation involves its own set of assumptions. Namely, translation assumes that languages are separate and distinctive. This is done mainly for the sake of practical convenience, because how else are you going to transfer a message that is understandable in one context but not in another? You can’t mix up all the words because that would just confuse everyone.

In order to make translation work, you need to ignore or downplay the fact that not everyone who speaks the same “language” can actually understand each other’s words. Still, you can’t group all these different linguistic contexts together, label it all as [insert language of your choice] and call it a day – not without huge caveats at least.

Translators are always faced with problems about how to represent the diversity within one particular language into another language. This gets particularly noticeable when it comes to regional languages and dialects. Often, the diversity is simply erased, or perhaps represented with the same “ethnic” voice that applies to every speech style that deviates from the standard dialect. The translation theorist Gayatri Spivak has this to say about translating ethnic dialects into English:

In the act of wholesale translation into English there can be a betrayal of the democratic ideal into the law of the strongest. This happens when all the literature of the Third World gets translated into a sort of with-it translatese, so that the literature by a woman in Palestine begins to resemble, in the feel of its prose, something by a man in Taiwan. (pp. 371-2)

– From “The Politics of Translation,” in The Translation Studies Reader (2004), 2nd edition, edited by Lawrence Venuti

To put this in perspective, let’s use a Japanese example. An observant anime viewer should be able to tell the difference between the Tokyo dialect used by most anime characters and the Kansai dialect. The Kansai dialect tends to be highlighted in translation as well. Most famously in ADV Films’s Azumanga Daioh release, Osaka’s Kansai dialect was translated into a Texan drawl.

But what about the differences between one regional dialect and another? How would a Kyushu dialect be any different from, say, a Kyoto dialect? [2] Such minute language differences (as far as the target audience is concerned) are rarely highlighted in translation unless it’s relevant to the plot. Just compare the Barakamon translations to the original if you’d like to see this in action. [3]

There’s a wealth of literature highlighting how this happens to languages translated into English, but it happens with other language pairs as well. When things are lost in translation, it tends to happen at the expense of the politically marginalised.

Having established that this is a Thing, let’s look at how Black vernacular in particular is translated into Japanese.

A Literary Example: Gone With the Wind

Before we examine Little Women and how it erases the Black vernacular, let’s briefly look at a counterexample: Gone with the Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell and translated by Misaki Okubo and Sachiko Takeuchi.

2D274905482198-today-gwtw-140327.today-inline-largeAs anyone who has read the novel or watched the film should be aware, Margaret Mitchell was not a big fan of blacks. To be blunt, she was a white supremacist. Black characters in Gone with the Wind are portrayed as racist caricatures, either as degenerate ruffians or for some reason really happy about being slaves. In the novel, their lines are written with such heavy orthography that they are, let’s face it, unreadable. Here’s an example:

Big Sam: No’m, us ain’ runned away. Dey done sont an’ tuck us, kase we wuz de fo’ bigges’ an’ stronges’ han’s at Tara … . Dey specially sont fer me, kase Ah could sing so good! Yes’m, Mist’ Frank Kennedy, he come by an’ tuck us.

Scarlett: But why, Big Sam?

Big Sam: Lawd, Miss Scarlett! Ain’ you heerd? Us is ter dig de ditches fer de w’ite gempmums ter hide in w’en de Yankees comes.

The Japanese translation attempts to replicate the effect by making the black characters speak with a garbled Tohoku dialect. They speak with the polite desumasu (ですます) form but then add the plain copula da (だ) at the end, which makes the sentence sound ungrammatical and unsophisticated. They also pronounce ai sounds as ee: Gozaimasu (ございます) becomes gozeemasu (ごぜえます), and so on.

The reason the Tohoku dialect was chosen here has a lot to do with language ideology (i.e. what people imagine speakers of a particular language to be like) and with the stigma around the Tohoku dialect. This only makes sense when you consider how, since the early days of the Meiji government, there has been a heavy push for standardising the Japanese language, and speakers of the Tohoku dialect came under direct pressure from the “Dialect Abolition Movement” (方言撲滅運動). Even today, the stereotype around Tohoku dialect speakers is that they’re rustic and dull-witted. Choosing to equate that stereotype with black slaves does not paint a flattering picture of either group.

20120926115106

“Ora” is a stereotypical first person pronoun in Tohoku dialects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s also worth noting that gendered language is barely present at all in the Japanese rendering of Black vernacular. In the “standard Japanese” often employed by fiction writers, it’s incredibly easy to tell apart a male and female from the first person pronouns they use, along with their sentence endings. In Gone with the Wind, all the black characters use the pronoun washi (わし) to refer to themselves regardless of their gender, so it’s not as easy to tell them apart. [4]

For black women, it seems, the typical standards of femininity that are associated with Japanese “women’s language” (女性語) don’t apply. This doesn’t mean that gendered stereotypes don’t apply at all to black women. Their crude speech implies that they lack the grace of upper class women, that they are undesirable in a romantic sense.

All of this means that the “women’s language” you hear in anime actually has implicit assumptions about race and class built into it. It’s telling that it’s used to convey the speech of middle class white women in translation while women of colour are excluded. In fact, the sociolinguist Miyako Inoue has written about how the discourse on Japanese “women’s language” initially evolved out of a need to create a unified urban class for women in Meiji Japan. The ideal of the “good wife, wise mother” (良妻賢母) applies only to a very specific type of Japanese woman. [5]

It is this stereotype that we need to keep in mind as we turn our attention to the gendered language in Little Women.

The Women in Little Women

fam1For those of you who aren’t familiar with the story of Little Women, it is a loosely autobiographical novel that follows the lives of four American girls: Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy. The first book is set during the Civil War, but we never see any of the fighting at all. Instead, the novel focuses on the domestic and family lives of the girls. It was a huge commercial success at the time and is today known as a classic among women’s literature.

The Little Women anime, or Ai no Wakakusa Monogatari as it is known in Japan, was produced as part of Nippon Animation’s World Masterpiece Theater. [6] The aim of the World Masterpiece Theater was to create animated versions of classic Western literature and adapt them for children. It is easily the most significant project Nippon Animation has ever done in the realm of TV anime, lasting for almost thirty years straight and spanning around thirty projects. [7]

The Little Women anime is not a straight adaptation of the novel. It ran for 48 episodes and only begins telling the story of the novel from the start of episode 22, so as you can see, it took a lot of liberties with the material. Nevertheless, it does function as a Japanese translation of the novel in one particular sense: the viewers are supposed to “hear” the English voices of the characters through their Japanese utterances.

As is conventional in fiction writing, the four girls speak with women’s language to each other. They end their sentences with particles such as no, yo, noyo, wa and kashira. It’s also evident that the girls “perform” femininity because of social expectations. For example, even when our boyish and independent-minded heroine Jo gets mad she still keeps using women’s language to express herself. Readers of the novel should be aware of Jo’s resistance against traditional feminine values, but curiously enough, this struggle is downplayed in translation.

Hannah the Black Maid

As I mentioned earlier in this article, women’s language is generally restricted to middle or upper class women. Unlike the other female members of the March household, Hannah the maid does not speak women’s language. However, she does not speak a bastardised Tohoku dialect either.

To be precise, Hannah speaks keigo (敬語), an honorific form of Japanese. Now, keigo is a very complex part of the language that it is difficult to sum up accurately, but it is generally used to observe hierarchies of power, particularly in the workplace.

Hannah’s subordinate position in the household is made abundantly clear in her introductory scene in episode 1, where she is shown speaking keigo to the twelve-year-old Amy. It should be noted that Amy uses plain-form Japanese, displaying her casual relationship with the maid.

As much as keigo is used to indicate power differences between individuals, it also indicates sophistication on the part of the speakers. Hannah’s use of keigo doesn’t display the same backwardness as the pseudo-Tohoku dialect does in Gone with the Wind. If anything, it implies the opposite, that Hannah is a very educated and eloquent woman.

Overall, Hannah’s role in the family feels quite ambiguous. The hierarchies implicit within honorific speech are based on age and one’s employment standing. On the surface, at least, race and gender have nothing to do with it. Maids are supposed to speak keigo to their masters no matter where they’re from. And perhaps that’s the reason why Hannah’s language gives me a sort of cognitive dissonance. The use of keigo here imposes a Japanese understanding of social hierarchy that doesn’t quite match my own understanding of Hannah’s social position in a 19th-century American society.

Let me explain what I mean by this. We are told that Hannah is “like family”, that she is an equal as far as the Marches are concerned. Even if Hannah is not technically equal to her employers, this would not be reflected in the way they speak to her. Thus, Hannah’s keigo creates a sense of distance from her employers that an American family would likely not tolerate. It also makes visible the fact that she is in a subordinate relationship.

At the same time, any hint of her racial identity is erased from her speech. This is juxtaposed with a narrative that doesn’t bring attention to the fact that black people were economically disadvantaged and prejudiced against even in the abolitionist North. Realistically speaking, a low-paid housemaid was likely one of the few job opportunities available to Hannah. This is never addressed, and in fact we are outright told that blacks and white are equal in the town of Gettysburg where the early episodes are set.

Thus, I can only assume that the anime is pushing forward a message of liberalism that is unfortunately blind to the complex reality of race and economic oppression. In this particular narrative, the black maid chooses to be a bit-part player and a subordinate to her wealthier white employers. Her character design (which was created by Yoshifumi Kondo, the late Studio Ghibli stalwart) even looks exactly like Mammy. You might remember Mammy as the slave from Gone with the Wind who was always so happy to be a slave.

The Little Women anime is a good show, but like everything, it’s not perfect.

Some tentative conclusions

Despite good intentions, the Little Women anime still relies on popular media stereotypes in order to portray a black woman. This is understandable. The way that black people’s voices are translated and represented through Japanese media makes it difficult for even an educated Japanese-speaking person to distinguish clearly between historical fact and racist caricature. While it’s generally agreed upon that a pseudo-Tohoku dialect is a go-to translation for non-standard dialects, it is extremely problematic because of the negative connotations the dialect carries. Not to mention that translation conventions give an impression that languages are more homogeneous than they really are.

How best to translate a black woman’s voice into Japanese remains an open question to which I can offer no easy answer. At times like these, I realise how fortunate I am that I can listen to an African American woman speak in English and understand her words through her own voice. However, my capacity to listen and understand does not extend to members of countless other language groups. I would not be able to meaningfully distinguish between the language groups in, say, India, or even my mother’s country: the Philippines. It would be impossible to learn every language in the world, and so I must rely on translation, however messy the process is.

masterenglish

I wrote this post with the hope that I could contribute to a clearer understanding of language ideology and its relationship with race, class, nationality and gender. Much feminist critique of anime fails to incorporate discussions of race, nationality and class, perhaps because many anime characters are drawn with a de-racialised, “mukokuseki” look that shrouds the complex interactions between Japanese and global media. I think that a focus on translation and on the processes through which language ideology is reinforced will give us a better understanding of the contexts in which anime is created.

There’s a lot more that I could write on this subject, but I’ll stop here because this post has gotten ridiculously long. In any case, I hope to explore certain ideas more fully in later posts, so if there are parts of this post which seem underdeveloped, it won’t remain that way forever.

As always, if you have questions/criticisms about this post, please let me know!

Until next time!

Footnotes:

[1] The anime’s foray into the politics of the Civil War can perhaps be explained by the sensibilities of the scriptwriter Akira Miyazaki. (Not to be confused with Hayao Miyazaki, who worked as an animator at Nippon Animation between 1973 and 1979.) Akira Miyazaki was a veteran writer for Nippon Animation and a graduate from the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, so if anyone at the studio had a good feel for foreign literature, it was him.

[2] It’s also worth pointing out that not all “Kansai dialects” are the same. In fact, there is considerable variation between regional dialects. But anime tends to make out that all Kansai dialect speakers use the same vocabulary, so this is a moot point for translators.

[3] This blog gives a detailed episode-by-episode overview of the Japanese used in the Barakamon anime.

[4] In standard Japanese, “washi” tends to be used by old men. The word sounds rather quaint to my ears.

[5] For a further exploration on the relationship between Japanese “women’s language” and language ideology, read ‘Speech without a speaking body: ‘‘Japanese women’s language’’ in translation’ by Miyako Inoue.

[6] By the way, Nippon Animation’s Little Women might be the most well-known adaptation, but Toei Animation also released a TV adaptation of the novel in 1981.

[7] The World Masterpiece Theater was rebooted in 2007 with an adaptation of Les Miserables, but it appears to have been received with considerably less success.


Translation Theory for Anime Fans: Why You Should Care

$
0
0

Dying+can+be+fatal+to+your+life+seems+like+death_39d9be_4962121I’ve talked about translation quite a few times already on this blog (see here, here and here), but I thought it would be a good idea to talk specifically about the theory behind translation – and why you in particular, as an anime fan, should give a crap.

This will be a series of posts that covers a major translation theory/debate every week with a key focus on how it applies to anime and its fandom. I’m writing this for a non-specialist, non-academic audience, so I’ll try not to sound too technical or dry. Translators might find some of this stuff relevant to their craft, but this isn’t a guide on how to translate.

Hopefully, after reading a couple of these posts, you’ll have a more informed opinion on key fandom issues such as fansubbing, localisation, faithfulness, and, of course, DUBS VERSUS SUBS.

But before we get started, we need to ask ourselves the obvious question.

What’s the point of theory?

Ah, the age old dilemma. Even though translation is an academic discipline these days, lots of translators don’t care much for the academic theories behind translation. They’d rather just get on with it. And indeed, there’s no empirical evidence to suggest that academically trained translators are better than untrained translators. However, as the famous translation theorist Susan Bassnett said: “The division is not really a division at all, for practitioners do talk about their work and can often articulate what they do and how they do it very well indeed.” (Reflections on Translation, 2011: pg. 16)

Theory is a way of verbalising something that most practitioners understand intuitively. It doesn’t necessarily make you a better translator, but it certainly doesn’t hurt, and it can help you find common ground with other translators when discussing particular problems. Even the most experienced translators get stuck all the time wondering, “What is the best way to translate this piece?” And while no theory can offer a clear cut solution, they can offer a range of possible answers, all correct in their own way.

But what about people who just read translations? Why should they know the theory? Well, as it turns out, it’s probably just as important for non-practitioners to know theory. For a start, if people had an idea about just how difficult it is to translate, maybe translators would get paid more (lol).

The main issue here, though, is that translation is, by definition, an act of communication between different cultures. We learn about other cultures through translations. We convey information through translations. One might even say that we create culture itself through the process of translation.

This is particularly relevant to the anime fandom because the majority of you reading this probably experience anime or other forms of Japanese pop culture through translation. Our fandom culture is influenced by the words used by translators, and in turn, our culture influences the translators.

8421-justasweaboo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me give you an example of this. Take all those Japanese words that have become part of the fandom lingo: otaku, moe, chuunibyou, etc. Anime fans adopted these words because they filled a gap in their lexicon. They were also simply left untranslated by many translators, which helped speed their rapid adoption. As anime has become more and more popular, the fandom has also become more insular, and the language has become more specialised accordingly.

It’s come to the point where someone with no familiarity with anime would be left confused by even the official subtitles of a show on Crunchyroll. What does all that san and chan nonsense mean? Manga is confusing as well. Imagine reading a book back-to-front! But it’s second nature for many of us fans.

In my opinion, to understand the nature of the modern anime fandom, it is absolutely necessary to understand why translation approaches to anime have changed over the years. And to understand that, you need to understand some translation theory.

I’m not the only one who thinks this way. Here is something the German translation theorist Heike Jüngst said about manga fans in Germany:

Manga fans are conscious of the fact that they are reading translations. Some of them learn Japanese, but as very few schools in Germany offer courses in Japanese, this is normally a private effort with a high drop-out rate. However, they expect the translations to give them something which is as much like the original as possible. The idea that there will always be losses and gains in comics translation, as expressed by Grun and Dollerup (2003), is not one these readers would be pleased with. (pg. 60)

– From Comics in Translation (2008), edited by Federico Zanettin.

This situation is one that feels very familiar to me from my observations of the English-speaking anime fandom. Indeed, with manga and anime translations all over the world, the trend has been to keep more and more of the original Japanese elements. It’s a trend that professional translators are highly aware of as well. Think of the backlash aimed at 4kids dubs and other early English adaptations. These days, professional translators are not much different from fan translators and are very often one and the same.

There are a bunch of complicated factors behind this which I will delve into with later posts, but it’s something for you to think about. Why do you think anime fans tend to prefer translations that retain the “Japanese-ness” of the original? What sort of translation do you prefer as an individual?

In my next post, we’ll look at theories of equivalence. What’s the difference between formal and dynamic equivalence, and what sort of translation style is prevalent in anime translations? If there’s no such thing as an objectively good translation, why do light novel translations suck???

 

Until next time…

BGcTT


Translation Theory for Anime Fans: How to Critique Translation

$
0
0

Let’s start today’s post with a Youtube video.

What’s interesting about this guy’s take on fansubbing is that he brings up translation theorists in order to justify his argument that fansubs are Objectively Bad Translations. This is something you should probably take with a grain of salt. It’s really easy for an academic’s work to be oversimplified when it’s being talked about in a non-academic environment. Even if the argument itself is presented accurately enough, the context around it might not be. In other words, someone might present an academic theory as fact when a theory is really just a theory.

This is relevant to the world of translation because, if you read any of the modern theories, they’re pretty much all in agreement that what makes a good translation is… um… well… it depends.

Seriously, that’s what it comes down to.

Take the untranslated Japanese words in fansubbing, for instance, which the video above overwhelmingly presents as a bad thing. Venuti, one of the cited academics, actually wrote a book in 1995 called The Translator’s Invisibility, where he comes out in favour of leaving cultural terms untranslated. Here’s what he has to say for himself:

The translator … may submit to or resist dominant values in the target language, with either course of action susceptible to ongoing redirection. Submission assumes an ideology of assimilation at work in the translation process, locating the same in a cultural other, pursuing a cultural narcissism that is imperialistic abroad and conservative, even reactionary, in maintaining canons at home. Resistance assumes an ideology of autonomy, locating the alien in a cultural other, pursuing cultural diversity, foregrounding the linguistic and cultural differences of the source-language text and transforming the hierarchy of cultural values in the target language. (pg. 308)

In plain English, what he’s saying is that whitewashing the differences between cultures is racist.

Granted, Venuti is not saying that weaboo translations are a great thing. In context, he’s arguing that translators should show a critical understanding of the cultures they’re working with. He wants translators to take their role as cross-cultural communicators seriously. The average fan translator has probably not thought deeply about imperialism and orientalism, but these are things that keep translation theorists awake at night.

But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objectively good translation. Lots of translation theories encourage certain approaches, but there is no scholarly consensus about what makes a good translation. Just like there’s no scholarly consensus about what makes a good anime (although eminent scholars definitely agree that your favourite anime is shit), a lot of translation is purely subjective.

But how can I tell if a translation is good?

See, this is an important question. I really encourage all anime fans to approach translations with a critical eye. However, if you don’t know the original language, how can you critique a translation properly? Are you really going to trust those guys at Cry More to do the thinking for you?

Here is what I think: Even if you don’t know the original language, you can still critique translation as a work of art in its own right.

The first thing you need to do is discard the notion that translations are inherently inferior to the original. Nor should you hold them to unrealistic expectations of faithfulness. If a translator has to change things around to make things work in your language, that’s okay! It’s a valid approach.

This might be going a bit far, though

This might be going a bit far, though

Think of translation like an adaptation. All translations serve a function, and all of them go through a process of transformation before you eventually read them. When you think of a translation in terms of what it is trying to achieve and how it is doing it, you can critique translation usefully even if you’re not an expert. I mean, I’m betting that none of us here are master animators, but we all have expert opinions about anime, right???

Anyway, there are two central theories in translation that should come in handy whenever you’re thinking about any translation.

I’ll start with the simpler one: skopos theorySkopos comes from the Greek word meaning ‘purpose’ or ‘aim’. The theory states that all translations serve a function, whether the translator is consciously aware of it or not.

The advantage of this theory is that it frees you from the assumption that translations have to read a certain way. You also don’t need to know the language to make reasonable guesses about what the translation is trying to do. What kind of audience is it trying to appeal to? How does the language reflect it? You can basically analyse a translation like any other text.

Of course, there are limitations to the theory. I think Anthony Pym sums it up quite well:

If every translation is dominated by its purpose, then the purpose is what is achieved by every translation. To separate the two, we would have to look at “bad” translations where purposes are somehow not achieved, thus complicating the notion of what a translation is. … Some appeal might be made to a principle of internal contradiction (one part of the translation goes one way, the other goes the other, so it is bad…). But who said a translation only has to have one sole purpose? The longer continues that line of argument, the less the Skopos rule seems to be saying. (pg. 152)

– From Exploring Translation Theories, 2nd Edition (2014)

This makes sense. Just because a translation fulfills its stated aim doesn’t mean it’s a “good” translation. For instance, the aim of a machine translation of a light novel is just to give fans a basic idea of what happens in the story. That doesn’t mean it has to preserve the stylistic elements of the novel or even be grammatically correct all the time. Basically, not all goals are created equal. (A similar thing applies to anime, by the way.)

That’s why proponents of skopos theory also mention that you can’t ignore the source text altogether when you’re evaluating a translation. It might not be the most important thing as far as translation is concerned, but it’s still pretty darn important.

Which brings me to the other central theory in translation: equivalence.

Translation works on the assumptions that words can mean different things in different contexts. That’s why there is no such thing as 1:1 equivalence. Even among speakers of the same language, there might be a need to “translate” words or phrases.

Now, there are certainly incorrect translations. You can’t translate 犬 (inu) as ‘cat’. But even when you rule out what a word or sentence can’t mean, they’re still open to multiple interpretations. Because of that, it’s better to think of equivalence in terms of a spectrum instead of a binary.

In other words, a translation doesn’t have to be literal or free. It can incorporate elements of both.

Screen-shot-2014-02-08-at-8.47.41-PM

Source: He Is Making Everything New

Moreover, equivalence doesn’t have to be posed in terms of this one spectrum. Eugene Nida came up with the idea of “formal” versus “dynamic” equivalence, where “formal” means sticking close to the word structure or form of the original text, and “dynamic” means capturing the effect. Friedrich Schleiermacher came up with “foreignization” versus “domestication”. Christiane Nord devised “documentary” versus “instrumental” translation. There are many more examples.

This might seem like an overload of terms all expressing the same thing, but they’re actually subtly different. A translation with lots of foreignised terms doesn’t have to be literal, for instance. An “instrumental” translation (i.e. one that prioritises its function over the form of the original message) doesn’t have to be a “dynamic” translation in the sense that it’s trying to capture the effect of the original.

You don’t have to know the names of all these approaches (in fact, I’m pretty sure these theorists are just making up new words for the hell of it). All you really need to know is that translations don’t just have to be literal or free. Once you open yourself up to the possibilities of translation, the more complex theories are easier to grasp, and you can still relate them to the translator’s word choices. That’s a topic for next time, though.

I'm sure there was a deep meaning behind this

I’m sure there was a deep meaning behind this

To finish, here are some things to think about:

When can you tell that a translation is a translation? What defines “translationese” for you?

Nida says that “dynamic” translations are generally preferable for literature. Would you agree with him?

Have you ever read a text in more than one language? Did reading that text in another language help you appreciate it more or less?



Translation Theory for Anime Fans: A Case Study of a Fan Translator vs a Professional

$
0
0

Fan translation is an interesting subject for media scholars. The whole practice is a demonstration of how our media consumption habits have been changing thanks to online technology. Fans have always been creating their own content, but now they’re able to distribute them much more quickly and more widely than ever before. A lot of the academic debate has centered around the ethics of fan translation and its relationship with piracy, which is a very fascinating subject that will get its own post one day.

Ironically, what gets less attention is the actual translating aspect. There have been scattered observations about the translation strategies used by fan translators, but very little empirical research. How do fan translators compare with professional translators? No one can answer this for certain. The question has only become more difficult to answer as the boundaries between “fan” and “professional” in the anime/manga/VN scene become increasingly blurred.

Today, I’d like to share with you guys a case study published in 2008 which directly compares a fan and professional translation. It’s not perfect (the scope of the study is extremely limited, and not to mention the study was published seven years ago), but what’s interesting was the author’s conclusion: the fan translation was considered just as competent as the professional translation.

7ij8Rsi

Bibliographical Information

O’Hagan, Minako. “Fan Translation Networks: An Accidental Translator Training Environment?” In Translator and Interpreter Training: Issues, Methods and Debates, edited by John Kearns, 158-183. London: Continuum, 2008.

Summary of the Case Study

In 2006, O’Hagan interviewed a fan translator involved in the scanlation scene about his translation habits and experiences. She also asked him to translate a short manga called Shissho Nikki (trans. Disappearance Diary), which had not been translated by any scanlation or professional group at the time. (It has since been scanlated, though.) The manga was chosen because it contained a lot of culturally-specific words and phrases. O’Hagan wanted to test the fan translator on two things in particular: his Japanese proficiency and his approach to translating culturally-specific words. His translation was then compared to a translation done by a professional.

The main purpose of the study was to find out if the scanlation environment works well as a training ground for potential translators. O’Hagan goes into detail describing the scanlation process as being much like a real workplace. Translators, editors and typesetters all have clearly defined roles. Scanlation also requires regular time commitment from each group member, especially when speed is a consideration. Of course, the only way to test whether a scanlation group produces professional-quality work is to compare the work to that of a professional. Hence the test.

1

The results were a little surprising. While the fan translator did make accuracy errors, especially when translating informal sentence structures, his translation was remarkably similar to the professional’s overall. However, there were striking differences in two particular areas:

  1. The fan translator actually used less translation notes than the professional.
  2. The fan translator tended to emphasise the idiosyncrasies in the dialogue more. In particular, the fan translator used drawn-out vowels to show colloqualism visually. (O’Hagan calls this “orthographic devices.”)

Examples:

  • “This is bad . . .  Reeeally bad” vs “Man, I feel sick”
  • “Heeey! Don’t ignore meeee!” vs “Cutting me dead, huh?”
  • “Okaaay” vs “OK”
  • “I’lllll kill yoooou!” vs “I’ll kill you!”

It appears that the fan translator used the elongated vowels to convey that the character speaking the lines was an okama. The fan translator picked a translation strategy that would make the character sound more effeminate, based on his close familiarity with the okama stereotype and how it tends to be portrayed in manga. O’Hagan deemed the fan translator superior in terms of genre awareness.

Also, while both translators claimed that they were attempting to keep translation notes to a minimum, the fan translator left more cultural words unexplained. Sometimes, he substituted more obscure cultural words for more widely known Japanese words. For example, he rendered the word izakaya as sake shop. O’Hagan notes that this might have had something to do with the fan translator having a particular readership in mind (i.e. fellow fans), whereas the professional translator was thinking about audience in a more abstract way. In other words, the professional assumed less cultural knowledge from the readers.

Overall, O’Hagan concluded that the two translators used equally valid translation strategies. Both were acceptable as commercial translations.

What are the takeaways from this?

Even if a fan possesses imperfect language skills, they might be able to compensate with genre awareness and a clear understanding of their target audience’s expectations. Of course, language ability is still extremely important, so genre awareness can only carry you so far. But it does help translators come up with creative and fitting solutions to translation problems.

There are, however, huge caveats to this study. The results are obviously not generalisable. It only suggests some certain ways that the fan translation environment could potentially be useful for training prospective translators. O’Hagan doesn’t claim that fan translation is automatically equal to professional translation. The quality of fan translations are extremely variable, after all.

The other thing to take into account is how the anime/manga translation industry has evolved since this study was carried out. Most professional translators these days are extremely familiar with anime conventions and internet lingo. Some of them may even have been fan translators in the past. This is how we end up with Crunchyroll subs pulling stuff like this:

gkZUib4

So is it worth trying to compare “fans” and “professionals”? I would say so. You might find it useful to think of fans and professionals as groups that influence each other. Even if the translations we are exposed to these days don’t fall neatly into either category, the ideas behind “fan translation” and “professional translation” continue to be extremely influential. You should also consider the fact that while professionals may frequently call themselves fans, only the professionals get paid. The distinction is not completely arbitrary.

So in the end, how do fans and professionals compare? I’ve written almost 1000 words without actually answering the question. There isn’t enough research to suggest that one is better than the other. As always, it comes down to context and keeping an open mind.

However, I will say this: O’Hagan wrote that article in order to convince translation theorists to take fan translations seriously, not just as a sociological phenomenon but as a serious alternative to the models taught in the academy. Even outside the anime world, crowdsourced translation projects are becoming ever more popular. Professionals who ignore the trends may well find it harder to adapt to a rapidly changing market. Professionals have a lot to learn from fans, just as fans have a lot to learn from professionals.


Translation Theory for Anime Fans: Postcolonialism, Feminism and all the other scary Tumblr words

$
0
0

In the 1980s and 1990s, translation theorists discovered social justice. It became very popular to talk about what it means to be an “activist translator” and the ways we can use translation to make marginalised minorities more visible. We call this the “cultural turn” of translation studies.

Sociology is still the dominant paradigm for translation theories today. This should come as no surprise if you think about it. Translation is an act of cross-cultural communication, so all the major sociological theories are a natural fit. In fact, I took up translation studies after majoring in Japanese language and cultural studies, and I’ve also taken courses in history and sociology. Postcolonialism and feminism are not new concepts to me.

Feminism… well, everyone knows what that is. (Or, at least, everyone thinks they know what that is.) I don’t want to get into any internet arguments about it so I’ll just say that feminism is about women’s rights and leave it at that.

cross_ange_22_2-640x360

Postcolonialism doesn’t get talked about so much in pop culture, but it’s just as important when it comes to social justice. Postcolonialism is the study of the cultural legacy of colonialism. As we know, there was a period in time when European powers colonised much of the known world, and the ongoing effects of racism and imperialism are still felt today.

This post is a short compilation of some of the more detailed essays and reflections I’ve written about the subjects. I did them for my translation theory class so the language is pretty academic. But I do talk about a lot of my personal experiences as well, so I hope you find them interesting.

The links open to pastebin in a new window.

Thoughts on the gap between theory and practice: I talk about how most people just don’t get what translation is all about. Translation theory is confusing, and that’s because translation itself is confusing! If only everyone could become more informed. Considering how inherently political translation is, it’s dangerous when people don’t ask what translations are for or what they’re trying to achieve.

Thoughts on translation and (post)colonialism: I linked to this essay on Ask.fm a while back, and it’s related to my thoughts on cultural appropriation. The history of translation is one of subjugation. Dominant cultures have always been spreading their ideas through translation, a process which has helped stifle indigenous languages and culture. How can this trend be reversed?

Translation and ideology: Why do I translate illegally?: This essay talks in general about how ideology influences translation, with reference to the Irish language revivalist movement. I also talk about why I am a fan translator and a filthy pirate. It has something to do with the fact that I AM SECRETLY A COMMUNIST.

tumblr_static_i-has-a-hat..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Disclaimer: I am not actually a Communist.)

None of these essays talk specifically about feminism, so let me spare a few words to address the elephant in the room.

Historically, translation has always been compared – negatively – to women. You might have heard the saying: “Translation is like a woman. If it is beautiful, it is not faithful. If it is faithful, it is most certainly not beautiful.” This is not true about women or translations, but hey, it’s a catchy saying.

Obviously, feminist translators do their best to reverse such debilitating stereotypes, because they’re partly responsible for why translation is still regarded as a rather unprofessional occupation, despite how intensely difficult it is. Translators don’t get paid much, generally speaking. They’re also not expected to leave any of their personality in their work. That’s because translations are held to an unreasonable standard of “faithfulness” despite the fact that translation is inherently subjective. Translation will only be regarded as an art in its own right when the world at large recognises that faithfulness is not the entire goal of translation.

The other thing that feminist translators do is point out all the awesome female translators in history. For example, did you know that the person single-handedly responsible for introducing classics such as War and Peace to the English-speaking world was a woman? Constance Garnett produced a whopping 71 volumes of translated Russian literature, including all of Dostoevsky and Turgenev’s novels. She also did hundreds of Chekhov’s stories. This woman worked like a machine. But of course, pretty much nobody knows who she is because she was a translator and a woman. And those who do know her make fun of her for being the Google Translate of her time. It’s hard to win in this world.

Constance Garnett

Constance Garnett

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are some controversial feminist theories, though. Some feminists object so strongly to the whole “translations should be faithful” thing that they advocate rewriting the texts altogether, just to make them more feminist-friendly. To quote Sherry Simon, one of the prominent feminist translation theorists:

For feminist translation, fidelity is to be directed toward neither the author nor the reader, but toward the writing project – a project in which both writer and translator participate. (pg. 2)

– From Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (1996)

In theory, this sounds quite nice, but it does lead to ethical problems, especially if the translator changes the intent of the original without taking the audience or the author into account. For example, if a translator removes sexist language in a text, aren’t they white washing its problems instead of opening it up to critique?

That said, I am generally okay with a translation making changes, even major ones. I would just prefer it if this process was transparent, so that the audience is also aware of what is happening.

Even more controversial (in my eyes, at least) is the contention that only women should translate texts written by women. This is related to the idea that for a very long time, translation has been done by people who didn’t actually understand the context of the works they’re translating. For example, back in the colonial era, we had lots of racist white guys translating Indian texts and not representing them very well. Feminists are right in saying that, assuming every translator was equally fluent in both languages, some translators are still more qualified to translate a particular text than others because of the experiences they’ve had. But the idea that only women can translate for other women is still problematic because not all women share the same cultural experiences.

Not to mention that discouraging men from translating women’s texts is a stupid idea to begin with. It only risks encouraging the kind of gender essentialist nonsense that feminists go out of their way to avoid. To say that only women can translate for women is like saying that only women can write female characters. I would urge people (particularly privileged folks) to do the proper research and be sensitive about culture/gender differences when they translate, but that is NOT the same thing as excluding them or devaluing their work.

So there you have it. As you might be able to see from this post, translation theorists can disagree with each other very strongly about things. There are no easy answers when it comes to translation, so all I can do is state my views as honestly as I can.

Do you agree with the ideas in this post and in my essays? Do you disagree?


Enrico Terrinoni, translator of Joyce

$
0
0

A really interesting interview with an Italian translator, translated by @Sephyxer. Anyone interested in the art and industry of literary translation should check it out.

Subterranean Tales

This post is mostly an English exercise for me to try and see how good are my translating and writing skills, so which better way to attempt it by translating an interview made to a translator? If you want the original interview you can find it here. Of course, if you find some grammatical errors or you don’t understand the meaning of a sentence (this is bound to happen), feel free to tell me! Sorry in advance to English majors and grammar nazis, this will make you cringe a lot.

_________________________________________________________________

Enrico Terrinoni is an Italian teacher and translator. His translation of Joyce’s Ulysses, published by Newton Compton in 2012, won the “Premio Napoli” the same year, proving itself as a critical and commercial success. As of today, in addition to contributing with the Manifesto’ s cultural page and occasionally with the “Corriere della Sera”, he’s working…

View original post 4,481 more words


Viewing all 11 articles
Browse latest View live